You want polished? Look no further than BSD. They pier-review the code (polish) on a regular basis. Now thats a real OS.
I wouldn't call the BSDs a 'real' operating system in the sense you're implying - particularly when it comes to desktop usage. While sure, most of the BSDs have a nice kernel, the ease of use in these systems are atrocious compared to Linux distributions. Being someone who uses various operating systems all the time, I should know.
Editing files to set the default window manager/desktop environment, rather than just giving me a display manager on boot that lets me select which window manager/desktop environment I want to use is a big example of this. Many Linux distributions have had this little thing already setup out of the box for years. Where is it on OpenBSD? DragonflyBSD? FreeBSD? NetBSD? - these distributions which are considered the 'major' BSD distributions.
Where is the ease of use in configuring hardware? In SuSE - YaST exists, it does it wonderfully both in the console as a TUI application and does it fine in x11 as GUI application too. In Ubuntu/Debian, depending on the desktop environment you choose, you get tools to configure the hardware in the configuration, restricted-drivers - which helps you automatically setup and proprietary drivers on the go (many BSD followers sneer at Linux for not having a stable driver ABI, but look which one has the superior support and ease of use). There is even a decent terminal configuration options for configuring your hardware accessible in Ubuntu/Debian distros via the dpkg-reconfigure, also a TUI interface.
I considered most BSDs a "real" OS a decade ago, but now, while they have updated with new software versions, they haven't evolved in functionality, ease of use etc. I don't really consider them modern at all and I would have to say, as it stands. The Linux distributions are superior, despite not having the most elegant of a kernel.
Quite true, since so many people falsely believe RPM is inferior, when it is, in fact, superior to deb in almost every way.
I have used both over the years and what I dislike about RPMs is how every distribution... Redhat, Mandriva, SuSE have to have their own unique way of handling things like signing of files.
Having worked with both, including making my own RPMs and specfiles, I can safely say, that using RPM is a dream compared to trying to do anything interesting with apt.
What does RPM and APT have to do with making the package? I personally prefer.deb packaging because of how easy it is to just build everything under a fakeroot 'clean system' using tools like pbuilder for any distribution. So far I haven't encountered RPM tools that let me do that under the same ease (though if you do know of any, please let me know - I would really appreciate it).
Since you did mention the tools. I have noticed that RPM package managers are a slower than the deb equivalents, just take a look at yast, urpmi, yum, rpmdrake and compare to apt-get, adept, aptitude etc.
So a sound server, yet another proprietary codec installer (which Ubuntu already has), a application that lets you make custom install CDs (I'll note that Ubuntu already has such a project in the works) and a new theme is a threat to Ubuntu's usage?
These aren't even reasons why I use Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Nor would they be reasons for most other people I know who use the *buntu systems on their desktops. I don't even see these as killer features that Ubuntu lacks.
I finally tried an iPhone and I have to say while I'm extremely impressed, at $599 I'd expect to be able to unlock it and use it with any provider (my provider is Cingular, but it's the principle of the thing), I'd expect to be able to install third-party apps, and I'd expect 3G. Also, I'd expect it to provide GPS functionality since new phones include GPS receivers.
I recently got a 3 Skypephone. I am amazed for the price it costs (50GBP for pay as you go or a 18month contract - minimum 12 pounds monthly). You get a mp3 player, movie player, video calls (non-skype), Steam video (tv channels), steaming audio (internet radio stations), skype-to-skype calls (free which work over the 2g network), podcasting, 3rd party software via j2me, bluetooth, msn messenger (free instant messaging) and the general other features like e-mail, mms, decent web browser (grab opera-mini), 3g support etc.
The only particular feature it lacks really is the visual voice mail (if your provider doesn't support the option of sending voice mail as MMS messages), a touch screen and of course.. the large screen.
In my opinion, it is superior to the iPhone in functionality, capability, cost (50GBP pay as you go or 12gbp 18month tariff verses 269GBP with a 18month, 35pound tariff) and it truly makes me wonder why the iPhone even gets the hype it does. The phone isn't even locked to a specific network and offers Skype calls/instant messages for free.
I stopped buying their servers when they started putting the network jacks in such a bizzare location that they shipped 1-foot CAT-5 cable extenders so people could actually use them.
I generally don't buy their equipment. But due to the nature of my previous jobs, I have ended up maintaining/fixing quite a lot of them.
I tend to buy my x86 equipment from IBM, HP, mom'n'pop computer shops (sometimes it's just easier to get someone else to build the machine you want when you're busy) and others.
Maybe you should watch all the Mac / PC commericals that have been out the last year or so. They're spot-on.
I dislike the fact they lied. Like the rebooting thing. How many times have I had to reboot OS X for something as trivial as a iTunes update is unbelievable. The 'networking' thing was just a blatant lie. Windows definitely supports more media devices than OS X provides. I did think though when PC made a pie chart, that was hilarious. But, the point is, they lied repeatedly - So I cannot trust anything said in these adverts at face value and nor should you.
The reasons for buying an Apple (for most of the market anyway) are: a) style
I have never known a person who bought a Mac for it's style -- online or offline. If you did, you would be the first.
b) functionality
I get more functionality out of Windows or Linux than I do on OS X honestly. I will emphasize below.
and c) ease-of-use.
I personally have a harder time using OS X because of how it's centric it is around simplifying everything and making everything use a GUI.
To give a example, if you spend most of your time working on documents. You will find a simple editor which permits you to do everything quickly with keyboard shortcuts, set which text is a header, subheader and mouseless operation will benefit you greatly.
However, this is not optimal for a user who have no previous experience with the software. You need to create buttons, methods to stylize text directly as the user is not aware that one can select a piece of text set it as a header and stylize it later. In other words, you need to make that piece of software usable by someone who had no previous experience.
OS X wins somewhat in this 'new to application' arena, but then when you get more experienced another issue occurs.
It has the side effect of where a user using a mouse, manually stylizing different sets of texts, clicking buttons to do actions rather than using keyboard shortcuts and so on is far less productive than the user who is using keyboard shortcuts, mouseless operations is capable of doing far more in that time.
OS X does not work for me, as I find myself often limited in how fast I can work because despite the fact there are keyboard shortcuts, it still is GUI centric in many cases. I want to be able to just hit three keys to perform most actions rather than hit several to bring up a GUI, switch through different GUI widgets to select options and continue.
It is easier and faster for me to use Windows and Linux, because when I get more proficient. I am much more productive at my tasks. That said, even Windows gets in the way of productivity, which is one of the reasons why a Linux system is now default on my laptop.
That said, please don't mistake me as a terminal-centric person. I think the terminal is great for managing servers, quick commands (like installing programs via apt-get, rather than loading a full graphical package manager. Or even that nifty command I did in my signature ^^). But none of the work applications I use are terminal applications.
I am also very fond of certain very GUI centric applications. I like my Amarok, Pidgin, mIRC, Kontact, Krita, Audacity, Kaffeine, fwbuilder etc.
The philosophies of the systems are just different, I find I have the right mix on Windows/Linux (Leaning towards Linux more).
Obviously you're looking for something different.
Maybe, but most people just want a computer that works well and I think I am the same way, despite likely having a different mentality.
I hear it was extremely expensive which was why they never bothered getting their PPC version 'verified'.
Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance
Feel free to explain why Darwin ports tend to have the odd segfault issues, their issues with compiling existing POSIX code which required code modification to get them to compile fine, when the same code ran just fine between LSB systems, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX the BSDs and so on.
Oh and don't forget to verify that signaling actually works properly in all scenarios now (hint: It doesn't).
Do you actually believe windows developers actually want to touch OO?
Being a Windows developer (I also develop on other platforms, but this is irrelevant) I can tell you that I don't want to touch OOo or Microsoft Office. If I want to generate a document, I want the ability to do it myself if need be and so on. So far, OOXML is not really the solution I've been lucking for. The documentation is appalling, what is considered a very simple document and 'correct' in the specification does not work with Microsoft Office. It's annoying.
But in the end it makes development easier.
Honestly, generating odt, ods documents is easier.
Microsoft takes care of developers.
I don't agree. The MSDN is one huge example. It's great that it has such a vast knowledge base. Unfortunately a third of the documentation contains the wrong behavior and possibly the worst workarounds I have ever seen for a problem with lots of empty promises to fix issues in the future that haven't been fixed. That is how well Microsoft takes care of the developers.
Developers are the ones who make this who software word turn around.
I disagree. Microsoft has been buying out software companies that are a threat, launching extremely anti-competitive campaigns against 3rd party software developers that rival their own products and so on. Microsoft are the ones making the software world go round because they are manipulating everything, not the developers or the consumers.
It's about documentation, support and tools.And face it...that is a field where microsoft has no competition.
Have you even seen Microsoft's support? Staying on the telephone for hours on corporate support to report a serious bug, only to get a idiot who doesn't seem to even grasp Microsoft's own products (and this has been on every occasion I have tried to do anything with the enterprise support). Microsoft does not even provide direct support options to consumers, never mind small-time developers.
Let's see what the Linux side does.
Do they have corporate support? Yes. Does Microsoft? Yes. Do they have 24/7 corporate call centers and fast pick up rates? Yes. Microsoft does not have 24/7 corporate call centers. Do they have people who know what the hell they're talking about on the otherside? Yes -- I have even got a kernel developer at one point when it came to a serious issue. Does Microsoft? Well, in my experience - never managed to talk to anyone who seemed to actually know. Does the regular consumer get support? Yes - obviously paid support is better but there are a lot of free alternatives that appear to be just as good (despite the people who perceive Linux support is 'rtfm'). Does Microsoft? There is a community that provides support on issues, but there is no paid support options offered at all.
Googling up for solutions and looking them up in forums(do i hear linux users trying to say smth?) is not acceptable.
Try researching the subject a little before opening your mouth next time.
The vast majority of command line, as well as common graphical toolkit (gtk, qt, etc) software that people typically run on Linux systems has either already been ported, is available through some system like Fink/DarwinPorts/etc, or can be ported relatively trivially (i.e. a day's work).
Being someone who has ported software to OS X... I can tell you OS X has really obscure issues that makes porting a pain -- Not only that. But try porting Aqua applications to Linux. You will likely need to completely rewrite the interface (as GNUstep does not support quite a few UI API features). There are a lot of APIs in OS X for just accessing system components which Linux would not have - Such as accessing the address book would likely require you to rewrite the code to use dbus to access the address book etc.
I also wouldn't go recommending Fink when there are numerous issues with it. A third of the programs in it are segfaulting on a brand new install, dependency hell issues and generally lack of testing. I assume they just try to get the applications to compile and then just stick it on the repository when it does.
This is by no means a 100% guarantee of portability for all software systems that you can come up with, but for the vast majority of cases it holds true.
This definitely is not the majority case unless the application was designed to work specifically between OS X and a POSIX (maybe LSB?) system -- reasons above.
Your original claim was "there is little reason to worry about Apple programs running on Linux" as "pretty much any Linux-compatible program can be run on OS X either through existing binaries or after a re-compile". Binaries on Linux don't work on OS X and vice versa either. I would say there is worry about getting Apple programs running on Linux. If we could run OS X applications on Linux, people certainly would not complain about the lack of Photoshop.
So all in all. I disagree that there is little worry in running "Apple programs" on Linux and vice versa.
He's right, and deep in your heart you know it. You seem to "locked in" a fantasy niche and can't get out. Apple is making loads of money...so they must be doing something right. The other big boys are fighting to stay afloat with ever-shrinking margins.
Honestly, the lock in thing doesn't bother me about OS X as much as other things. Still, I was explaining the lock-in issues that do exist with a Mac.
You cannot run OS X on other hardware and the hardware that exists is extremely limited in capability and selection forcing you to buy more expensive hardware. These issues exist, whether or not you want to call it a lock-in or something else.
I second the AC on the Dells. Living in Dell central, I can tell you that the parts aren't standard. The only way you get standardized components is to roll-your-own, and not even geeks are wanting to do that anymore.
I have not had any problems switching PSUs (they used to have different wiring before 2002 though that would blow the motherboard), graphic cards, sound cards, network cards, DVD drives, hard drives with the dells. So they're obviously standard enough. Maybe Dell hardware differs in Europe -- But I doubt it.
There are a lot of wireless setups Linux doesn't support. Some only work because you take proprietary Windows drivers, extract the needed code and insert it into a funky Linux wrap-around. Not terribly elegant, or free from IP issues.
They are either supported or they aren't. If they work, they're supported. As far as mushing copyright, patents, trademarks under that single word. The drivers being shown on the link I provided are being used in a legal way. True, to get some of them it isn't elegant at all, but I am not arguing ease of use.
Short story long: Your Anti-Apple bigotry is showing, and like most bigotry, it only flatters your ignorance.
Probably not, since it doesn't sound like you know very much.
Oh sorry? Did I offend you? Too bad.
Fortunately. I know more about this subject than you do. I know Mac hardware is not that well supported compared to most other x86 hardware out there.
There are lots of drivers on the Linux side that are missing for thing like wireless and webcams. If you think Linux has that all figured out, you're dreaming.
Lots? Okay. Tell me exactly which wireless drivers are not supported on Linux. Here is a list of wireless devices which can be seen as supported. So you will need to produce chipsets/wireless cards which are not on that list.
Anyway, you can run Linux on nearly anything. Why you would want it to replace OS X is beyond me, but you've got the choice. No lock in.
Here is why I wouldn't use OS X: The GUI does not work for me - I honestly hate it. The POSIX support is crap compared to even Windows (Windows is actually more compliant). The x11 server in OS X can't do drag and drop nor does it handle copy pasting that well. The core libraries don't even behave the same as other Unixes. OpenGL code that works on the BSDs, Linux, Solaris, Windows may not work right on OS X because OS X's implementation doesn't follow specifications properly. There is not really that great selection of linux/bsd tools available - Don't bother mentioning Finf since half of the stuff from it's repositories segfaults and has dependency issues that were solved long ago on Linux distributions (in other words, the tools don't work). The BSD subsystem in the XNU kernel can't even do POSIX signaling properly. Not to mention, developing any cross-platform applications on OS X is terrible (try compiling for other platforms - it's so difficult to get the environment setup). Not to mention my biggest gripe with OS X: It's slow. It's file systems are slower, it's slower at compiling, it's GUI is not as responsive as a Linux distribution running on the same hardware, despite the claim that the graphical engine in OS X is superior.
Your point being?????? Linux runs on just about anything.
True, but it runs very poorly on Macs. Most of devices either don't work or barely work.
Any hard-core graphic card for gaming is going to be a power burner, which is exactly what the Mac Mini form factor is not. It emphasizes size and power saving. So the Mac Mini wouldn't be for you.
You obviously don't know gamers. Not all gamers have unlimited cash, not all gamers have the choice to buy a machine just for gaming and so on. A computer with the Mac Mini specification's having the ability to be upgraded (better gfx card, soundcard) would be a very decent gaming machine.
Sorry, buddy. The lower end models in the PC world (especially Dell) cut corners everywhere, and it shows.
From what I've seen, people still upgrade components and they get better performance from it. Sure it may not be 100% the hardware can do, but it's enough to make people happy - and that is what is important.
If you want a very flexible hardware platform, you're going to be paying a lot for it. Most people don't upgrade anyway, and would rather not paying for the luxury of doing so.
I haven't needed to pay a lot for a flexible platform. Well, only when it come to Macs actually. You're entirely wrong.
The only systems that can do what I call proper hardware changes are made by Sun and IBM. Call me when you're able to hot swap a CPU and we'll talk, but that's off on a tangent.
Not relevant to this discussion either.
Duh. That's what you call a business model. If Apple doesn't want people running OS X on the cheapest hardware available, that's their call. Part of the "It Just Works" ability of Apple is that they concentrate their effo
1. Are managed so poorly that you could have hardware failures in the raid controllers and no one dealt with it.
If only RAID monitoring hardware and software didn't suck as much as they do. Obscure problems occur with what is considered 'good' RAID hardware and it still doesn't notify you in some meaningful way.
2. Are operated without ANY FORM OF UPS!
I guess you have never had a UPS fail on you. I've had plenty of 'decent' ones fail to do their jobs.
Both of those things are just inconceivable for any reasonable production shop.
Since when was open source about running binaries at all? Open Source is about source code, making it possible to run on just about any platform, proprietary or otherwise.
True, but I don't understand what the previous poster was talking about still.
The first tyme I used XP it was installed on a Dell and it froze when booting up. Whether it was because of XP or the hardware I don't know but it gave me a bad impression.
I am pretty sure it isn't a common issue. I've also had similar experiences in the past with a powerbook running OS X.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro I got in August and the only problem I've had with it, other than typing related, is software.
I had got a powerbook a while back. It kept making high pitch whistling noises. When I upgraded to OS X 1.4.9, the wireless drivers in that update some how did not work with the wireless card in that particular MacBookPro (it came with it!). So I had to keep OS X at 10.4.5 just keep wireless working. During this time I wasted many, many business support tickets with Apple, just sending it away trying to get the issues fixed. Apple would lose the machine for months at a time and send it back claiming there was nothing wrong,. Sometimes they would wipe the machine, install the latest versoon of OS X and send it back with a non-working wireless card and high pitch whistling.
Notably my previous macs which ran on PPC, each one had at least one "logicboard failure" (why don't they call it a motherboard or mainboard anyway?), many of which I had issues with Apple also losing for months at a time. My overall experience with Macs has been more troublesome than any over vendor I have used.
I don't consider any vendor perfect and in my experience, Macs have given me a lot of grief. A few experiences from a specific vendor is not enough to determine how good a vendor is, because every vendor will have problems.
That said, I have barely ever used Dell (mostly just maintained/fixed them for others), it is possible that Dell is even worse.
Of course I won't be going to Dell, but Apple seems to go out of their way to put difficult rubbish in their machines (WiFi!) - and instead of viewing the enemy of their enemy as a friend, they are as much anti Linux as Microsoft are:/
I'd go with the iMac because of the Unix under the hood.
OS X actually isn't POSIX compliant (Windows' POSIX subsystem is actually compliant ironically), the kernel is not Unix. It is a mishash of different kernels. Mainly the Mach kernel and a BSD subsystem, which they call XNU, which used to stand for XNU is Not Unix until they paid huge sums to SCO, who just gave them a certificate that said they were a official Unix (which SCO technically does not have the trademarks to do so according to Novell and IBM)
but I find OS X to be the friendliest when it comes to GUI.
I wouldn't say OS X is the friendliest for Unix "stuff". The x11 support in OS X doesn't even have drag and drop and copy pasting between x11 and Aqua applications is absolutely appalling in support. For other things... I would say the GUI has been dumbed down enough to make people comfortable using the system as they're not confronted with 'too much' functionality which would be more likely to confuse less technologically adept users.
There's a reason why there are more refurb dells available than refurb macs.
From previous experience. That would be because when a Mac goes, it really goes.
Did you compare the dell with changed OS and gui enhancement apps, with a stock macbook? Maybe you should take a look at all the free gui enhancements available for Mac OS X to level the playing field?
In my opinion, (k)Ubuntu+Beryl GUI is superior to OS X's (I don't need dumbed down interfaces). I have used both extensively and I still prefer Linux distributions to OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Editing files to set the default window manager/desktop environment, rather than just giving me a display manager on boot that lets me select which window manager/desktop environment I want to use is a big example of this. Many Linux distributions have had this little thing already setup out of the box for years. Where is it on OpenBSD? DragonflyBSD? FreeBSD? NetBSD? - these distributions which are considered the 'major' BSD distributions.
Where is the ease of use in configuring hardware? In SuSE - YaST exists, it does it wonderfully both in the console as a TUI application and does it fine in x11 as GUI application too. In Ubuntu/Debian, depending on the desktop environment you choose, you get tools to configure the hardware in the configuration, restricted-drivers - which helps you automatically setup and proprietary drivers on the go (many BSD followers sneer at Linux for not having a stable driver ABI, but look which one has the superior support and ease of use). There is even a decent terminal configuration options for configuring your hardware accessible in Ubuntu/Debian distros via the dpkg-reconfigure, also a TUI interface.
I considered most BSDs a "real" OS a decade ago, but now, while they have updated with new software versions, they haven't evolved in functionality, ease of use etc. I don't really consider them modern at all and I would have to say, as it stands. The Linux distributions are superior, despite not having the most elegant of a kernel.
Since you did mention the tools. I have noticed that RPM package managers are a slower than the deb equivalents, just take a look at yast, urpmi, yum, rpmdrake and compare to apt-get, adept, aptitude etc.
So a sound server, yet another proprietary codec installer (which Ubuntu already has), a application that lets you make custom install CDs (I'll note that Ubuntu already has such a project in the works) and a new theme is a threat to Ubuntu's usage?
These aren't even reasons why I use Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Nor would they be reasons for most other people I know who use the *buntu systems on their desktops. I don't even see these as killer features that Ubuntu lacks.
I don't agree with this reviewer.
The only particular feature it lacks really is the visual voice mail (if your provider doesn't support the option of sending voice mail as MMS messages), a touch screen and of course.. the large screen.
In my opinion, it is superior to the iPhone in functionality, capability, cost (50GBP pay as you go or 12gbp 18month tariff verses 269GBP with a 18month, 35pound tariff) and it truly makes me wonder why the iPhone even gets the hype it does. The phone isn't even locked to a specific network and offers Skype calls/instant messages for free.
I tend to buy my x86 equipment from IBM, HP, mom'n'pop computer shops (sometimes it's just easier to get someone else to build the machine you want when you're busy) and others.I dislike the fact they lied. Like the rebooting thing. How many times have I had to reboot OS X for something as trivial as a iTunes update is unbelievable. The 'networking' thing was just a blatant lie. Windows definitely supports more media devices than OS X provides. I did think though when PC made a pie chart, that was hilarious. But, the point is, they lied repeatedly - So I cannot trust anything said in these adverts at face value and nor should you.I have never known a person who bought a Mac for it's style -- online or offline. If you did, you would be the first.I get more functionality out of Windows or Linux than I do on OS X honestly. I will emphasize below.I personally have a harder time using OS X because of how it's centric it is around simplifying everything and making everything use a GUI.
To give a example, if you spend most of your time working on documents. You will find a simple editor which permits you to do everything quickly with keyboard shortcuts, set which text is a header, subheader and mouseless operation will benefit you greatly.
However, this is not optimal for a user who have no previous experience with the software. You need to create buttons, methods to stylize text directly as the user is not aware that one can select a piece of text set it as a header and stylize it later. In other words, you need to make that piece of software usable by someone who had no previous experience.
OS X wins somewhat in this 'new to application' arena, but then when you get more experienced another issue occurs.
It has the side effect of where a user using a mouse, manually stylizing different sets of texts, clicking buttons to do actions rather than using keyboard shortcuts and so on is far less productive than the user who is using keyboard shortcuts, mouseless operations is capable of doing far more in that time.
OS X does not work for me, as I find myself often limited in how fast I can work because despite the fact there are keyboard shortcuts, it still is GUI centric in many cases. I want to be able to just hit three keys to perform most actions rather than hit several to bring up a GUI, switch through different GUI widgets to select options and continue.
It is easier and faster for me to use Windows and Linux, because when I get more proficient. I am much more productive at my tasks. That said, even Windows gets in the way of productivity, which is one of the reasons why a Linux system is now default on my laptop.
That said, please don't mistake me as a terminal-centric person. I think the terminal is great for managing servers, quick commands (like installing programs via apt-get, rather than loading a full graphical package manager. Or even that nifty command I did in my signature ^^). But none of the work applications I use are terminal applications.
I am also very fond of certain very GUI centric applications. I like my Amarok, Pidgin, mIRC, Kontact, Krita, Audacity, Kaffeine, fwbuilder etc.
The philosophies of the systems are just different, I find I have the right mix on Windows/Linux (Leaning towards Linux more).Maybe, but most people just want a computer that works well and I think I am the same way, despite likely having a different mentality.
Oh and don't forget to verify that signaling actually works properly in all scenarios now (hint: It doesn't).
Run away before it consumes your soul!
Let's see what the Linux side does.
Do they have corporate support? Yes.
Does Microsoft? Yes.
Do they have 24/7 corporate call centers and fast pick up rates? Yes.
Microsoft does not have 24/7 corporate call centers.
Do they have people who know what the hell they're talking about on the otherside? Yes -- I have even got a kernel developer at one point when it came to a serious issue.
Does Microsoft? Well, in my experience - never managed to talk to anyone who seemed to actually know.
Does the regular consumer get support? Yes - obviously paid support is better but there are a lot of free alternatives that appear to be just as good (despite the people who perceive Linux support is 'rtfm').
Does Microsoft? There is a community that provides support on issues, but there is no paid support options offered at all.Try researching the subject a little before opening your mouth next time.
I also wouldn't go recommending Fink when there are numerous issues with it. A third of the programs in it are segfaulting on a brand new install, dependency hell issues and generally lack of testing. I assume they just try to get the applications to compile and then just stick it on the repository when it does.This definitely is not the majority case unless the application was designed to work specifically between OS X and a POSIX (maybe LSB?) system -- reasons above.
Your original claim was "there is little reason to worry about Apple programs running on Linux" as "pretty much any Linux-compatible program can be run on OS X either through existing binaries or after a re-compile".
Binaries on Linux don't work on OS X and vice versa either. I would say there is worry about getting Apple programs running on Linux. If we could run OS X applications on Linux, people certainly would not complain about the lack of Photoshop.
So all in all. I disagree that there is little worry in running "Apple programs" on Linux and vice versa.
You cannot run OS X on other hardware and the hardware that exists is extremely limited in capability and selection forcing you to buy more expensive hardware. These issues exist, whether or not you want to call it a lock-in or something else.I have not had any problems switching PSUs (they used to have different wiring before 2002 though that would blow the motherboard), graphic cards, sound cards, network cards, DVD drives, hard drives with the dells. So they're obviously standard enough. Maybe Dell hardware differs in Europe -- But I doubt it.They are either supported or they aren't. If they work, they're supported. As far as mushing copyright, patents, trademarks under that single word. The drivers being shown on the link I provided are being used in a legal way. True, to get some of them it isn't elegant at all, but I am not arguing ease of use.So far you haven't shown it.
Oh sorry? Did I offend you? Too bad.
Fortunately. I know more about this subject than you do. I know Mac hardware is not that well supported compared to most other x86 hardware out there.
Lots? Okay. Tell me exactly which wireless drivers are not supported on Linux. Here is a list of wireless devices which can be seen as supported. So you will need to produce chipsets/wireless cards which are not on that list.
Here is why I wouldn't use OS X: The GUI does not work for me - I honestly hate it. The POSIX support is crap compared to even Windows (Windows is actually more compliant). The x11 server in OS X can't do drag and drop nor does it handle copy pasting that well. The core libraries don't even behave the same as other Unixes. OpenGL code that works on the BSDs, Linux, Solaris, Windows may not work right on OS X because OS X's implementation doesn't follow specifications properly. There is not really that great selection of linux/bsd tools available - Don't bother mentioning Finf since half of the stuff from it's repositories segfaults and has dependency issues that were solved long ago on Linux distributions (in other words, the tools don't work). The BSD subsystem in the XNU kernel can't even do POSIX signaling properly. Not to mention, developing any cross-platform applications on OS X is terrible (try compiling for other platforms - it's so difficult to get the environment setup). Not to mention my biggest gripe with OS X: It's slow. It's file systems are slower, it's slower at compiling, it's GUI is not as responsive as a Linux distribution running on the same hardware, despite the claim that the graphical engine in OS X is superior.
True, but it runs very poorly on Macs. Most of devices either don't work or barely work.
You obviously don't know gamers. Not all gamers have unlimited cash, not all gamers have the choice to buy a machine just for gaming and so on. A computer with the Mac Mini specification's having the ability to be upgraded (better gfx card, soundcard) would be a very decent gaming machine.
From what I've seen, people still upgrade components and they get better performance from it. Sure it may not be 100% the hardware can do, but it's enough to make people happy - and that is what is important.
I haven't needed to pay a lot for a flexible platform. Well, only when it come to Macs actually. You're entirely wrong.
Not relevant to this discussion either.
Notably my previous macs which ran on PPC, each one had at least one "logicboard failure" (why don't they call it a motherboard or mainboard anyway?), many of which I had issues with Apple also losing for months at a time. My overall experience with Macs has been more troublesome than any over vendor I have used.
I don't consider any vendor perfect and in my experience, Macs have given me a lot of grief. A few experiences from a specific vendor is not enough to determine how good a vendor is, because every vendor will have problems.
That said, I have barely ever used Dell (mostly just maintained/fixed them for others), it is possible that Dell is even worse.